Book Summary & Copyright

[alika]

We did an article where we summarized a small section of a book. The article makes clear attribution to the author and to the book, with a picture of the book prominently displayed in the article. The article clearly states that the ideas contained therein are ideas of the author (we paraphrased or put quotes if direct quotes). Every mention of the author's name (and the author's name is mentioned in every paragraph after the intro)is linked to the book's page in Amazon.

The author emailed us thanking us for the book exposure (we sold quite a number of copies of the book through Amazon). However, he takes offense to the copyright notice that we have at the footer of the site (this copyright notice can be found in all of the articles written by our staff, not in the contributing authors' pages). He said that we cannot put our copyrights as the content is based on his ideas.

All materials contained in this site are the copyrighted property of XXX. "XXX" and all titles, characters, names and graphics are trademarks of XXX. To reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit, modify, distribute or publicly perform or display material from this site, you must first obtain written permission from XXX. You may view and download material from this site for your personal, non-commercial use only. We will enforce our copyrights to the fullest extent permissible under the laws of the United States and any treaties that may apply. Contact us for reprint or purchase of this article

We added this footer after finding out about the sale of one of our articles on ebay. We are not claiming that we own copyright to the author's book. In fact, the book is properly attributed. I think the author took offense to the last statement "contact us for reprint or purchase of this article." Granted, the summary was done without securing the approval of the publisher or the author.

Any suggestions on how we should handle this?

Thanks

[BigDave]

I do find it interesting that you are making money off his work, yet you place a draconian notice like that on your site.

You are taking advantage of Fair Use of his book, yet your notice seems to be attempting to deny not only infringers, but others that are involved in Fair Use. And it does seem to imply that you are claiming copyright over what you used of his work.

I would cut back on the verbosity of your warning, then I would put in an acknowleging copyright notice on every page where I use anyone elses copyrighted material.

Take a look at the copyright page in any Stephen King book. He is always quoting a line or two of various songs, and he puts the copyright credits on that page.

I think the biggest problem is this first sentence "All materials contained in this site are the copyrighted property of XXX." That is unnecessary in a copyright notice, and is in fact incorrect if you are using any materials from any other source. You can own the copyright on the combined work, but you do not own his work that you are using.

Now to pick apart the rest of your notice

"XXX" and all titles, characters, names and graphics are trademarks of XXX.

Are they really? You have registered all these trademarks in every country?

Trademarks are very, very different from copyrights. They do not happen automatically, and they are not worldwide due to the Berne Convention. They give you very few protections, and if they are real words, they are quite easy to get thrown out if you challenge someone with them. And many "graphics" would not receive trademark protection, but would receive copyright protection.

To reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit, modify, distribute or publicly perform or display material from this site, you must first obtain written permission from XXX.

Basically quoting trademark law, but not doing you any real good. If you are trying to avoid the ebay situation again, you would be better served by putting limiting language here as to specifically who can distribute your articles, otherwise people could assume that the person selling on ebay has been granted written permission.

"XXX has not granted distribution rights to any other parties. If you found a copy of this article elsewhere, please contact XXX and report the infringement." or something to that effect.

You may view and download material from this site for your personal, non-commercial use only.

I don't believe that this restriction would hold up in court under the copyright act. Especially if the notice is at the end of the page, where a commercial user would not see it till they had already viewed the whole page. You also seem to be trying to deny the protected uses of research and education. Not to mention review, commentary, criticism and parody.

Of course you can say anything like this that you want, but you should be aware that does not mean that you can necessarily enforce it.

We will enforce our copyrights to the fullest extent permissible under the laws of the United States and any treaties that may apply. Contact us for reprint or purchase of this article

This is actually fairly reasonable.

Just clean up the middle part and stop claiming copyright on things that are copyrighted by others or in the public domain.

[alika]

The author replied to our email and apologized. He was up "late last night" and apologized if his tone was rude. Now he wants us to excerpt or write about his new book -- LOL. He has been blacklisted from our site, and the article is being revised right now to remove any reference to his book and remove any of his ideas. All pages that recommend his book (we have a Recommended Books column in our articles) has also been revised to remove his book from our site.

The copyright notice was given to us by our copyright lawyer, so we are sticking with it.

[alika]

We have a copyright credit of his book. Below the article is a notice that the author owns the copyright to the book.

Our "draconian" copyright notice is at the very bottom of the footer.

[Christi]

Alika, I don't understand why you blacklisted the writer from your site. Either you valued the work or didn't, right?

And I agree with BigDave about the trademark issue. Having worked for years and years in publishing and with lawyers, I'll say they're not always right.

[BigDave]

Your copyright lawyer may have written it, but did you tell him that your pages might contain works of others? You might want to consider pointing out that issue instead of just "sticking with it".

The big problem is the "All materials contained on this site" part, when in fact, that is incorrect. It appears that many of the materials on your site are in fact the copyright of someone else.

Now you are all pissed-off at this author, who is doing exactly what your copyright notice says that you will do if you find someone else using your stuff. He is just trying to protect his intellectual property rights. Don't you think that you are being a little hypocritical?

[Teshka]

Interesting topic. I've done several book reviews that include summaries of the contents and links to Amazon. I've always assumed the reviews themselves belonged fully to me as far as copyright goes. I never use quotes, though. Also, I just use a generic site copyright at the bottom of my pages.

Does a review differ from a summary in the eyes of the law? At what point do you need to acknowledge copyrights belonging to the author of the book with some sort of statement on the page?

Regarding the original post, why blacklist the author? That makes it seem like you have something to hide.

[BigDave]

A summary *might* be considered a derivative work. But as part of a review, there is a good chance that it is covered under fair use.

The original post referred to quotes, paraphrases and pictures of the cover of the book. These are all covered by the book's copyright, though used through fair use.

Where the problem comes in, as far as I'm concerned, is when you don't give copyright attribution to the rights holder. Even worse is then claiming, as the original poster does with the quoted copyright notice, "All materials contained in this site are the copyrighted property of XXX."

The key objection I have is that they are claiming copyright on other's works.

Give credit to others for their work, and make sure that you are not claiming their work as your own.